Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dallas Morning news joined them with their endorsement of Clinton, first democrat in over 70 years. Also USA today came out against Trump, couple this with all the republicans that came out against Trump and are voting for Clinton.
Trumps only hope is that he can paint these publications as part of the entrenched system, I'm sure there are people that he can convince. Meanwhile he keeps on making history.
Never heard of this paper. I dont give a rats azz if every newspaper in the universe endorses some ultra corrupt hag. ITS THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER, not some elitist rags rum by millionares
Think about this for just one minute: When EVERY major publication in the country and most of your own party are not happy with you, what does that tell you ? The majority of these people are ones who have NEVER gone against a Republican nominee for decades and decades ,but this time they just can not support him.
They realize the seriousness of this hysteria and have to stand up and say what most of us are seeing.
Think about this for just one minute: When EVERY major publication in the country and most of your own party are not happy with you, what does that tell you ? The majority of these people are ones who have NEVER gone against a Republican nominee for decades and decades ,but this time they just can not support him.
They realize the seriousness of this hysteria and have to stand up and say what most of us are seeing.
Don
Yet his support is still in the 40% range, scary. You wonder what it takes to change someone's mind.
Yet his support is still in the 40% range, scary. You wonder what it takes to change someone's mind.
Thats the problem. It would take even a somewhat trustworthy and believable candidate on the other side that people could be comfortable voting for. Its sad and scary that "the most qualified candidate ever" can hardly scrape up enough support, and she is scraping by in polls against "the most dangerous candidate ever"
Thats the problem. It would take even a somewhat trustworthy and believable candidate on the other side that people could be comfortable voting for. Its sad and scary that "the most qualified candidate ever" can hardly scrape up enough support, and she is scraping by in polls against "the most dangerous candidate ever"
I understand mistrust and dislike for Clinton, I was hoping for a decent alternate also but this continuing support in light of his actions is really out there.
First, USA Today; now, this. Shows you that the media has lost all credibility. This also reeks of desperation among leftists so hell-bent on seeing this country destroyed and not even allowing an alternate viewpoint.
First, USA Today; now, this. Shows you that the media has lost all credibility. This also reeks of desperation among leftists so hell-bent on seeing this country destroyed and not even allowing an alternate viewpoint.
Another quip-
The Atlantic has only made 3 endorsements since its' founding in 1857. Boy when they make them, they make them hurt, lol.
Of all the endorsements this one resounds the most so far. You certainly cannot claim that they lean Democrat or Republican. The interesting thing is that the headline does not actually endorse Clinton, it just says "Against Donald Trump".
- the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency
- no record of public service
- no qualifications for public office
- an infomercial huckster
- traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective
- appallingly sexist
- erratic
- secretive
- xenophobic
- expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers
- evinces authoritarian tendencies himself
- easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal
- enemy of fact-based discourse
- ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution
- he appears not to read
I'm sure they missed a few but has to be the most accurate description I've read yet.
The first thing you need to do is educate yourself about 'media'.
The Christian Science Monitor is not the same as the National Enquire.
No news, cable or broadcast, channel speaks the whole truth. Budget are tight, so many are using young, ignorant reporters.
We have been fed crap about liberal media for so long, we cannot recognize it is apolitical corporate media. They have no POV. The job is to make money so they give the listeners what they want to hear.
I blame it on Congress. They and the POTUS took away the Fairness Doctrine.
I am eternally baffled by this. Not sure about you, but I look at a wide spectrum of sources before making any decision or reaching any conclusion. That includes Fox to MSNBC, NPR to Rush Limbaugh and everything in between. Spend time in forums like these to try to get the whole picture; and I might actually pick up a BOOK along the way if I really get crazy. Along the way you start to be able to distinguish between facts/information and opinions/propaganda. Never close the door to new information. Why would you ever do that? I don't get it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
